On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:13 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Michael Paquier escribió: >>>> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Sawada Masahiko <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> > Sorry the patch which I attached has wrong indent on pg_controldata. >>>> > I have modified it and attached the new version patch. >>>> Now that you send this patch, I am just recalling some recent email >>>> from Tom arguing about avoiding to mix lower and upper-case characters >>>> for a GUC parameter name: >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30569.1384917...@sss.pgh.pa.us >>>> >>>> To fullfill this requirement, could you replace walLogHints by >>>> wal_log_hints in your patch? Thoughts from others? >>> >>> The issue is with the user-visible variables, not with internal >>> variables implementing them. I think the patch is sane. (Other than >>> the fact that it was posted as a patch-on-patch instead of >>> patch-on-master). >> >> But spelling it the same way everywhere really improves greppability. > Yep, finding all the code paths with a single keyword is usually a > good thing. Attached is a purely-aesthetical patch that updates the > internal variable name to wal_log_hints.
There are many GUC parameters other than wal_log_hints, that their names are not the same as the names of their variables. We should update also them? Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
